Scoop’s Views

It seems inevitable that when U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Az.) opens his big mouth, people dislike what he says. Most of the time, I don’t even come close to agreeing with anything from the guy. There’s just something about the guy — other than him being a politician — that makes me not trust him.

In the interview with BeliefNet, published this past Saturday,  McCain is quoted as saying:

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles … personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith, but that doesn’t mean that I’m sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."

Later in the interview, McCain said:

"I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values. The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Yesterday morning brought out all the proverbial Monday-morning cockroach dancers wanting their 15 minutes of fame. Maybe it was just simple ethnic bashing, ethnic promotion, and seemingly implied claims of dual citizenship.

One of the more vocal groups, the American Jewish Committee, which describes itself as "an international think tank and advocacy organization" — what’s a "think tank", really — and based, where else but New York, issued a statement knocking McCain, chiding him as if a junior high school student taking the Constitution test.

Jeffrey Sinensky, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee, issued the statement for the "think tank" when it wasn’t moving (it is a tank, such as an M-1 Abrams, right? Or is it a tank, as in a "fish tank"?), which read, in part:

"To argue that America is a Christian nation, or that persons of a particular faith should by reason of their faith not seek high office, puts the very character of our country at stake."

Is Sinensky really so dense as to take the words of a politician, especially one running for office, to be literal in meaning? I mean, let’s get real. When’s the last time any politician said anything that was an absolute promise or a statement of absolute faith in anything? Even George W. Bush, the fearful alcoholic with serious drug abuse problems in his past, seemingly doesn’t have real convictions about anything if you really look at his actions, listen to his words, and watch his deeds.

Politicians say things that will keep them in office. Politicians say things to win favor. Politicians say things that will help them gain support for a bill that’s coming up for a vote. More importantly, during an interview, those same politicians, when asked a question one-on-one, answer from their heart, supposedly. Many say things that often reveal a side of them that starkly contrasts with their voting record. Some say things to representatives of the media that could land them in jail (anyone thinking of a guy, sitting in office, that was supposed to resign on September 30?).

It seems the problem Sinensky has two problems with McCain’s comment — again, I do not like or trust McCain, so I am not defending him because I back him in any way. The first problem Sinensky has, it seems, is that McCain stated a fact: The U.S. was founded on Christian principles. The second is that McCain would personally vote for someone he felt comfortable voting for, such as someone who holds the same religious beliefs or is of the same denomination.

Sinensky is reaching, and in reaching, he is creating his own straws in mid-air to grab. Not once did McCain say anything about a person of specific faiths or beliefs not being allowed, nor that they shouldn’t run for office.

The last time I checked my history books, not the modern day revisionist, feel-good-about-all-and-accept-everything society put out by the Politically Correct crowd, the United States was founded on Christian principles. No, the U.S. is not a Christian nation, as that’s set forth in the founding documents of this nation, has been maintained by the Courts, but nowhere, and I challenge Sinensky or anyone else, to show me the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the ratified Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to show where it mentions anything about a "separation of Church and State."

Oh, wait! The issue about the supposed separation of Church and State comes about when it is convenient for one group of people to attempt to hold down another group, keeping them from practicing their beliefs. If you look, those same groups that attempt to stop others from practicing their religion, faith, or whatever, are often the very ones that argue they have some sort of "Constitutional rights" that exempt them from many things, including some sort of religious mandates that must be honored by governmental entities and others — including private employers. Yeah, right. Where’s that "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution? It isn’t. It’s a mere ploy that’s coughed up with the phlegm of slimy attorneys when it’s convenient to use against others.

These same people attempt to argue it was the "intent" of the Founding Fathers that there be some sort of whimsical separation of Church and State. These same nuts argue the Founding Fathers were attempting some sort of economy of wording within the Constitution when it came to this supposed separation of Church and State. If that’s what you want to believe, go for it. If you have a brain, then look at the Constitution in its entirety and find where else the Founding Fathers economized wording. You won’t. The Founding Fathers were explicit in their attempt to create a guiding document for the new nation which they were leading, the United States of America.

For a nation not founded on Christian principles, according to Sinensky and others, it’s hilarious to read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and many other documents that date back to the founding of this nation. The concept of a "separation of Church and State" was first written by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802 to gain their support. It has since been widely picked up and invoked in major Supreme Court decisions. Why? I have no idea. A mere letter is of no legal merit, but that letter, because of those zealots so hard pressed to deprive others of their rights to freely practice their beliefs and faith — primarily aimed at Christians — have sought every possible argument, logical or not, to halt anything remotely "Christian" from any sort of "public" display.

Let’s give Sinensky some breathing room. There was another group that jumped up to bash McCain: the Muslims.

Ah, yes, our good, true friends. Yes, sarcasm. Some Muslims are good people. Some are not. That’s the same with most groups of people, whether you look at them based on race, religion, or whatever other variable. Taking it out one step further, I can show you some U.S. Marines that are wimps, but many, though, can put some serious hurt on the Average Joe. All groups have their good and bad.

Jesus was clear: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God what belongs to God". That is the separation of Church and state. No "good" Muslim can avoid the mandate to impose Sharia law. They consider it a duty to impose that by any means necessary-including deception.

McCain needs to really decide who he is, what he believes, and stick with that and forget about playing flavor-of-the-day for whatever crowd he is dancing in front of on any given day.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!